Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
Thread started 20 Aug 2010 (Friday) 10:21
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Nikon D3100 is some serious competition

 
RobDickinson
Goldmember
4,003 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1041
Joined Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
     
Aug 23, 2010 18:03 |  #16

davidfig wrote in post #10774058 (external link)
Imagine how much better it would be if it was 9MP. That would be 50% larger photocells and that would lead to better ISO performance, even at ISO100.

If it doesnt convert any aditional photons to pixels it wouldnt be any better.

If your using 100% of the sensor for collecting photons (which the 7D is close to, with gapless microlenses close to the photosites etc) combining those sites doesnt make any better an image.

it just looses detail. Theres no proof anywhere that with canons tech more pixels hurts anything, there producingthe best crop sensors in the market and the highest number of pixels.


www.HeroWorkshops.com (external link) - www.rjd.co.nz (external link) - www.zarphag.com (external link)
Gear: A7r, 6D, Irix 15mmf2.4 , canon 16-35f4L, Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5 mk2, Sigma 50mm art, 70-200f2.8L, 400L. Lee filters, iOptron IPano, Emotimo TB3, Markins, Feisol, Novoflex, Sirui. etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Er1kksen
Member
175 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Fredonia, NY
     
Aug 24, 2010 18:56 |  #17

davidfig wrote in post #10774058 (external link)
Imagine how much better it would be if it was 9MP. That would be 50% larger photocells and that would lead to better ISO performance, even at ISO100.

It would be nice if photosensors really worked that way. In reality, though, sensor size, not photosite size, is the determining factor (now that gapless microlenses eliminate "dead circuit area"). Think of it this way: if the noise produced per area is the same, but you have to enlarge the output of the smaller sensor more to output than you do from the larger sensor, and the noise is magnified through this process. That's why larger sensors have cleaner output; NOT because they have larger photosites.

When keeping the sensor size constant (within a specific model line, for example) noise is decreased by refining technology both to reduce noise produced by the circuitry and to better sort noise from signal in the data pipeline. Making the photosites bigger or smaller just changes the resolution. Again, due to microlenses, ALL the light is now being captured. What's important is how efficiently the photosites convert it to signal.


40D, 85mm f1.8, DC 952AF flash

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dithiolium
Senior Member
697 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Singapore
     
Aug 24, 2010 22:19 |  #18

What's more interesting is that Nikon has changed the way it 'trickles' down sensor design from high end to low end. Based on previous trends, the D3100 should have adopted the 12MP D5000/D300 sensor.

And they have also givin in to mass market consumer perception that equate high MP count to high quality and a 'betta camera'. I thnk Canon had something to do with starting this trend.


Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis of a government
Gear List / Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RobDickinson
Goldmember
4,003 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1041
Joined Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
     
Aug 24, 2010 22:32 |  #19

dithiolium wrote in post #10782505 (external link)
And they have also givin in to mass market consumer perception that equate high MP count to high quality and a 'betta camera'. I thnk Canon had something to do with starting this trend.

Perception? the 7d and 550d sensor being the best crop sensors on the market?


www.HeroWorkshops.com (external link) - www.rjd.co.nz (external link) - www.zarphag.com (external link)
Gear: A7r, 6D, Irix 15mmf2.4 , canon 16-35f4L, Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5 mk2, Sigma 50mm art, 70-200f2.8L, 400L. Lee filters, iOptron IPano, Emotimo TB3, Markins, Feisol, Novoflex, Sirui. etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Er1kksen
Member
175 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Fredonia, NY
     
Aug 25, 2010 06:52 |  #20

RobDickinson wrote in post #10782575 (external link)
Perception? the 7d and 550d sensor being the best crop sensors on the market?

Not quite, unfortunately, but they are excellent examples of the fact that higher pixel densities do NOT negatively impact image quality.


40D, 85mm f1.8, DC 952AF flash

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdang307
Senior Member
780 posts
Joined Aug 2009
     
Aug 25, 2010 18:34 |  #21

Er1kksen wrote in post #10784261 (external link)
Not quite, unfortunately, but they are excellent examples of the fact that higher pixel densities do NOT negatively impact image quality.

That's because while they increased the pixel density, they also improved other technologies. The counter argument is, if they improved sensor technology while keeping the pixel constant, the other qualities would be even better.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rhys216
Goldmember
1,814 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Oxfordshire
     
Aug 25, 2010 19:10 |  #22
bannedPermanent ban

I love being able to crop when I need to without loosing noticeable quality, which can sometimes make for a very forgiving camera. As long as the processors can process all those pixels efficiently I don't see the problem.

What other crop body camera has a better sensor than a 550d by the way?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Er1kksen
Member
175 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Fredonia, NY
     
Aug 25, 2010 21:02 |  #23

jdang307 wrote in post #10788057 (external link)
That's because while they increased the pixel density, they also improved other technologies. The counter argument is, if they improved sensor technology while keeping the pixel constant, the other qualities would be even better.

Except that the counter-argument is not at all true. Did you read my previous post, wherein I explained why photosite size does not make a significant difference? I'd rather not have to type up another whole treatise on all the details and "what ifs" but there's plenty of solid information available out there if you've got further questions.


40D, 85mm f1.8, DC 952AF flash

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Er1kksen
Member
175 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Fredonia, NY
     
Aug 25, 2010 21:13 |  #24

rhys216 wrote in post #10788226 (external link)
I love being able to crop when I need to without loosing noticeable quality, which can sometimes make for a very forgiving camera. As long as the processors can process all those pixels efficiently I don't see the problem.

What other crop body camera has a better sensor than a 550d by the way?

The sensor in the K-x (also in the A500 but with cheaper components that reduce IQ) and the sensors in the NEX3/5 and A33/A560 produce pretty similar resolution while providing greater dynamic range and slightly better signal-noise ratio per area (with the 14mp sensor in the Sony cameras doing slightly better than the 12mp sensor in the Pentax). All indications are that the 16mp sensor in the A55/A580, which is based on the same technology, has an equal or even slightly better SNR than the 14mp sensor while having resolution that's likely to be indistinguishable from the 550D's.

Overall it's a very close "race" in all measures of sensor performance, most differences being not enough to matter in real-world usage, but for still imaging the Sony sensors currently have the edge.

Aside from the A55 sensor which isn't supported by any real RAW software yet, I'm basing my conclusions from my own tests with RAW files from each of these cameras rather than tests done by other users or review sites.


40D, 85mm f1.8, DC 952AF flash

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bob_A
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,438 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 46
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
     
Aug 25, 2010 21:49 |  #25

DXOMark has the K-x as the high ISO champ followed by the 550D then the Sony (by a wee bit). They also have the K-x as the DR champ. Hopefully their real world results live up to these numbers since in the past (just last year) Sony's high ISO results were horrible:


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Bob
SmugMug (external link) | My Gear Ratings | My POTN Gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RobDickinson
Goldmember
4,003 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1041
Joined Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
     
Aug 25, 2010 22:28 |  #26

Their numbers dont take into account resolution though, but for this argument we can safely say more pixels isnt always worse.


www.HeroWorkshops.com (external link) - www.rjd.co.nz (external link) - www.zarphag.com (external link)
Gear: A7r, 6D, Irix 15mmf2.4 , canon 16-35f4L, Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5 mk2, Sigma 50mm art, 70-200f2.8L, 400L. Lee filters, iOptron IPano, Emotimo TB3, Markins, Feisol, Novoflex, Sirui. etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
imageswest
Senior Member
516 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 27
Joined Apr 2006
Location: Gabriola Island, BC
     
Aug 26, 2010 15:34 |  #27

DStanic wrote in post #10770821 (external link)
Is it true that this is the first DSLR with AF for video? (I really have not payed much attention to video features of DSLRS, I was under the impression that they were all manual focus??)

The D3100 will be manual-focus only except with their AF-S lenses - it won't AF at all with their classic AF or AF-D lenses.


Cliff LeSergent
Images West Photography
www.imageswest.ca (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdang307
Senior Member
780 posts
Joined Aug 2009
     
Aug 26, 2010 17:20 |  #28

Er1kksen wrote in post #10788778 (external link)
Except that the counter-argument is not at all true. Did you read my previous post, wherein I explained why photosite size does not make a significant difference? I'd rather not have to type up another whole treatise on all the details and "what ifs" but there's plenty of solid information available out there if you've got further questions.

I have. And you know way more than me (I Know nothing).

But this site if it's credible at all argues that pixel size is indeed important.

http://www.clarkvision​.com …rmance.summary/​index.html (external link)

with the difference being more pronounced the higher ISO you go up in scale.

The article does go on to say though, that if your print size is constant, increased pixels have a much bigger effect on quality, then increased pixel size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mastamarek
Goldmember
Avatar
1,882 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
     
Aug 26, 2010 17:28 |  #29

DXO is the worst site ever created by a human being in the history of teh internet. plz dont take it seriously.


[Facebook® (external link)]
[imassmedia.pl (external link)]
[Flickr (external link)]
[My Blog (external link)]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
makion
Member
48 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
Aug 26, 2010 20:21 |  #30

Mastamarek wrote in post #10795484 (external link)
DXO is the worst site ever created by a human being in the history of teh internet. plz dont take it seriously.

is it actually? i trusted the site for a bit but i somehow noticed that all of the nikon sensors were at the top.


My Flickr (external link) / Deviantart (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

10,554 views & 0 likes for this thread
Nikon D3100 is some serious competition
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is heflerbj
966 guests, 317 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.